Holding Court: There’s No Business Like Snow Business
Holding Court is a series by retired Rye City Court Judge Joe Latwin. Latwin retired from the court in December 2022 after thirteen years of service to the City.
What topics do you want addressed by Judge Latwin? Tell us.
By Joe Latwin
A reader asks: “What actually happens to homeowners, who repeatedly, do not clear snow from their sidewalks? M. Kopy [Public Safety Commissioner] said he will not be issuing multiple summons. It’s especially problematic when an absentee homeowner, with renters, never even receives the summons…left in the mailbox. Why can’t the City mail the summons to the HO’s address of record to obtain a higher level of compliance? Obviously, a one time, $50 fine isn’t doing the trick, since it would cost more to have the sidewalk cleared. Another idea would be to have the DPW clear the sidewalk and bill the homeowner.”
The reader has hits on several important questions. As with most “crimes”, nothing happens to the perpetrator. They have to be caught, have a proceeding brought against them, lose at a trial or take a plea, and have to pay for their crime. Let’s look at the first step, being caught. Our Police Department has very few officers on patrol on the streets, and for the most part, they patrol in police cars. While on patrol, they are answering calls for assistance, looking for illegal activity, and enforcing traffic laws. It becomes a question of priorities what an officer will do. Do they respond to calls for medical emergencies, cover school crossings, investigate more serious crimes, or enforce snow laws? If the police do see an un-shoveled sidewalk and issue a summons, there is an unresolved question as to how many summonses may be issued for a single snow storm. Section 167-48 says “Each day such violation is permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense.” This means the police would have to return to the location on another day. Again, it’s a question of priorities.
Who gets the summons? Rye City Code section 167-47 says “Every owner, lessee, occupant and other person having charge of any building or lot of ground fronting or abutting upon a sidewalk, including any unpaved area used as a sidewalk or walkway, on any public street or public place in the City of Rye shall, within 24 hours after the cessation of every fall of snow or the formation of any ice on the sidewalk in front of or adjacent to said building or lot of ground, remove or cause the said snow or ice to be removed or cleared entirely from the said sidewalk; provided that in case the snow or ice on any sidewalk in front of or adjacent to said building or lot of ground shall be frozen so hard that it cannot practically be removed, the owner, lessee, occupant or other person having charge thereof shall, within the time hereinabove specified, cover and strew the said sidewalk or cause it to be covered and strewn with sifted ashes, sand or some other similar material and shall, as soon thereafter as weather will permit, thoroughly clean said sidewalk and remove the said ice and snow therefrom.”
How do the police determine who is the owner? They would have to go to White Plains to the County Clerk’s Office to get a certified copy of the deed showing who is the owner. Only then can a summons be issued against the owner. If there is a lessee or an occupant, how would the police determine who that was, let alone prove it in Court? A name on a mailbox doesn’t show or prove rental agreement or whether the name on the mailbox is that of an occupant.
Even if the officer could determine who the owner, lessee, or occupant is, they have to be personally served. You can’t mail the summons to them to get jurisdiction. I have suggested to the City that it create an option to proceed criminally or civilly in these minor quality of life cases. That would not only permit service by mail in a civil case but lower the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to by a preponderance of the evidence. It would also relieve the City from the extra burdens of prosecuting a criminal case.
Having DPW clear the sidewalk creates other issues. While the law allows the City to clear and bill the owner, during and after a snowfall DPW is usually very busy clearing, salting, and sanding the roadways, and clearing the snow off of City owned properties. Where do we get the manpower to do the additional work of clearing private sidewalks. We regularly pay DPW employees overtime at 1.5 to 3 times their regular wages, depending on whether it is done on a workday, weekend, or a holiday. There is also a question of liability. If a person falls, they can claim the City didn’t do a good enough job clearing the snow and that was the cause of their injuries.
Even if prosecuted and convicted, the maximum fine is $100. Hardly a deterrent, nor likely more than the costs of prosecution. Lastly, a $50 or $100 fine is not economically realistic. Several years ago, I suggested that the fine be on a per foot of sidewalk basis. Thus, an owner on a corner lot with 50 feet on each street would have a greater exposure for not clearing both sides. I also suggested the fine be raised so that the fine would exceed the market cost of hiring a person to clear the snow. Why should it be cheaper to pay the fine than clear the snow?
